New Poll: Federal Cuts and Spending

Posted on by

New York Times: “As President Obama and Congress brace to battle over how to reduce chronic annual budget deficits, Americans overwhelmingly say that in general they prefer cutting government spending to paying higher taxes, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.”

Well, duh! Did we really need a poll to tell us that?

The questions are interesting though.
See Survey questions and results here
The Federal Budget Deficit
Do you think it is necessary to take immediate action to lower the budget deficit or do you think it is possible to wait for better economic times? Most people say it is necessary to lower the budget deficit.

In order to reduce the federal budget deficit, do you think it will be necessary or not necessary to increase taxes on people like you? Most people think it will not be necessary to raise taxes on people like them.

No surprise with those answers. But now it gets interesting.
Continue reading »

Public Opinion During the Great Depression

Posted on by

PEW had an interesting story about public opinion during the Great Depression. They noted the difference between then and now–during our great recession.

“Quite unlike today’s public, what Depression-era Americans wanted from their government was, on many counts, more not less. And despite their far more dire economic straits, they remained more optimistic than today’s public. Nor did average Americans then turn their ire upon their Groton-Harvard-educated president — this despite his failure, over his first term in office, to bring a swift end to their hardship. FDR had his detractors but these tended to be fellow members of the social and economic elite.”

Source:
How a Different America Responded to the Great Depression

by Jodie T. Allen, Senior Editor, Pew Research Center
December 14, 2010

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

Posted on by

I received an email from Vice President Biden telling me that the tax deal struck by Obama and the Republicans in Congress is a good deal. If the Bush-era tax cuts are allowed to sunset, it would cost the average taxpayer $3,000.
Really? The tax deal may or may not be good, but I am very wary about averages. When you are in a situation where there is a huge income disparity, the average gives a distorted picture of reality. If the administration is going to be honest about the numbers, they should provide the median rather than the mean (average). And if they are going to use the mean, they should also show the standard deviation.
Now these guys know that. So the fact that they resorted to a statistical distortion to convince people to support their budget deal made me seek better information.

The Washington Post provides an interactive site so you can seen the impacts of the various options. See story at:
Washington Post Tax Plan Comparison Continue reading »

Census: the Methodology Behind the Count

Posted on by

From Pew: “The Census Bureau today released five sets of population estimates for the nation as of April 1 — but not from the soon-to-be-released 2010 Census count. The estimates are based on an alternative measurement technique, called demographic analysis, that agency officials say employs plausible assumptions about population change. The demographic analysis estimates range from a low of 305.7 million to a high of 312.7 million. The first numbers from the 2010 Census, which will include online canadian pharmacy a national population total and state totals for reapportionment purposes, will be released later this neupro canadian pharmacy month. At a news conference today, Census cialis soft Bureau Director Robert Groves said the five different estimates all make “plausible assumptions.” The analysis will be among three major pharmacycanada-rxedtop.com tools used by the bureau to evaluate the quality of the 2010 Census. The other two include quality measures such as mail return cialisgeneric-toped.com rates from the census itself, and a post-census quality-check survey for which results will be released in 2012.” See article at: http://viagraonline-edstore.com/ Pew

Social Security: Life Expectancy

Posted on by

The average monthly social security benefit to retirees is $1,170. But still, most people opt to start collecting it at viagra blindness age 62 even though they will get a reduced benefit, rather than wait until they are 66. But the viagra 200mg argument around raising social security retirement age is about life expectancy. Even simple facts, like life expectancy, turn out not to be simple once you start getting into the details, according to an column by Ezra Klein, September 03, 2010 “Start with the basic rationale for raising the retirement age. Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wisc.) has argued that when Social Security was signed into law, the retirement age was 65 and life expectancy was 63. “The numbers added up pretty well back then,” he said on Fox News. But that’s misleading. That figure was buy cialis online driven by high infant mortality. If you were a white male who’d made it to age 60 in 1935, you could expect 15 more years going forward. If you’re a white male who lives to 60 today, you can expect 20 more years going forward.” “Moreover, those averages conceal a lot of inequality. In 1972, a 60-year-old male worker who made less than the median income had a life expectancy of 78 years. By 2001, he had a life expectancy of 80 cialisonline-storeedtop.com years. Meanwhile, workers in the top half of the income distribution shot to 85 years from 79. Insofar as pharmacycanada-rxedtop the argument for raising the retirement age is that “Social generic viagra online Security beneficiaries live a lot generic cialis online longer today than they did in 1935,” it should be restated as: “Social Security beneficiaries tend to live somewhat longer today than they did in 1935, and that’s much more true of rich beneficiaries than poor beneficiaries.” by Ezra KleinSeptember 03, 2010 http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/03/we-should-leave-social-security-alone.html

What Did the Election Really Mean?

Posted on by

It is hard to understand why voters vote, perhaps because their are a variety of issues and emotions that influence elections. And then there is spin–which has little regard for data as it tries to convince us of an ideological “truth.”

New polling results McClatchy Newspapers reported by Steven Thomma suggest that the midterm elections were not a mandate on specific policies.

“A majority of Americans want the Congress to keep the new health care law or actually expand it, despite Republican claims that they have a mandate from the people to kill it, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll.

The post-election survey showed that 51 percent of registered voters want to keep the law or change it to do more, while 44 percent want to change it to do less or repeal it altogether. Continue reading »

OK–You Fix The Budget

Posted on by

The NY Times has an interactive budget puzzle. You choose the budget cutting and revenue generating options, and it tracks it on a graph.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html
Of course, it depends on the assumptions used to come up with amount of money that will be cut or generated for each of the options.
A few seem a bit off to me, so they might have different assumptions.
The social security cut is problematic–because there is enough money in the trust fund for more than 30 years, so making any cuts really does not help with the deficit in the near term.
And the amount of money that would come into the treasury if the mortgage deduction was eleminated seems on the low side.
But it’s kind of fun!

Election 2010: What Did $4 Billion Buy?

Posted on by

The Washington Post listed some of what was purchased with the $4 billion spent on the 2010 elections:

Candidates spent at least $50 million on catering and liquor, $3.2 million at country clubs and golf courses, and $500,000 on pizza, coffee and doughnuts.
Plus, $2.5 billion for ads and media handlers.

And lattes all around: Democrats spent at least $24,000 and Republicans spent at least $17,000 at Starbucks.

Meg Whitman, who spent at least $140 million of her own money in her losing bid to become California’s governor–paid $109 million to Smart Media Group of Alexandria to handle her broadcast advertising campaign, $4.5 million to compaign adviser Scott Howell, and $1.1 million to GOP strategist Mike Murphy.

The joy of simple descriptive statistics!

Washington Post story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/07/AR2010110703929.html